kEiThZ
Superstar
I'm referring to places like Perth along the HFR route.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
I'm referring to places like Perth along the HFR route.
kEiThZ
Superstar
There's not even a shovel in the ground and we're already down to single track. Multiple services is not possible.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Couldn't there be passing tracks at those smaller stations, allowing express trains to pass by the station?
lenaitch
Senior Member
A single mainline track with passing tracks dictates pretty tight and consistent scheduling. I can't imagine how they would interweave a local service into that. I doubt there is much market for 'commuter-like service' between the enroute hamlets.
robmausser
Senior Member
Theres not currently any service on the HFR line because it doesnt exist. What are you talking about? Please be more clear.
What WE are talking about is all the communities along the yet to be built HFR line demanding they have stops in agreement to support the HFR line being built in their backyard.
crs1026
Senior Member
^ Various quotes in past media articles have mentioned stops in Perth and Sharbot Lake. I don’t recall whether VIA was quoted for those or whether it was local pols who were quoted. I suspect there may be a certain amount of locals’ wishful thinking being voiced.
The good news is, there really aren’t many more places on that line that might beg for service. I don't see VIA having a problem stopping one or two trains a day in either of those places. Maybe Tweed as well. Havelock ? Norwood? No more difficult in total than the lesser stops they serve on the existing route. And if they stagger them creatively (let’s assume the biggest market would be Toronto-Tweed, and Tweed- Ottawa, not Tweed-Sharbot Lake, for instance) one or two stops per run would not be fatal to timekeeping.
I am far more worried about what the prevailing top speed will be. The nominal figure is 177 km/hr, but if that is only reached in spots with many slowdowns for curves etc, the end to end trip times will be less attractive even if no stops are made. Can’t wait until some of that detailed design reaches the public domain.
- Paul
The good news is, there really aren’t many more places on that line that might beg for service. I don't see VIA having a problem stopping one or two trains a day in either of those places. Maybe Tweed as well. Havelock ? Norwood? No more difficult in total than the lesser stops they serve on the existing route. And if they stagger them creatively (let’s assume the biggest market would be Toronto-Tweed, and Tweed- Ottawa, not Tweed-Sharbot Lake, for instance) one or two stops per run would not be fatal to timekeeping.
I am far more worried about what the prevailing top speed will be. The nominal figure is 177 km/hr, but if that is only reached in spots with many slowdowns for curves etc, the end to end trip times will be less attractive even if no stops are made. Can’t wait until some of that detailed design reaches the public domain.
- Paul
robmausser
Senior Member
Thats why im adamant they need to purchase the same cars as being used on the Acela corridor, as they tilt further than any other trainset and can increase speeds around curves up to 20%.
Allandale25
Senior Member
kEiThZ
Superstar
Probably not happening. They took out options on the Siemens order specifically so they can exercise them when HFR is approved.
Also, as per @Urban Sky this whole thing is being designed for as little capital as practical. So the kind of opportunity investment that most of us here are hoping for is probably not happening.
We'll probably end up with a service that's 3.5 on Toronto-Ottawa, 1.5 hrs on Ottawa-Montreal and 5 hrs on Toronto-Montreal. Via will make their yield on the first two segments and hope to beat out the bus cos on the third trip.
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
Which is probably the most practical approach if you want to see any of this built in the near future. Having worked several large scale provincial and federal procurement bidding processes (not in transit, but in IT infrastructure), it's always prudent for the bidders to go in with an offer on the lower end of the spectrum to get in the door. Once the project is started, it's far easier to include add-ons via change orders (since you are bypassing the usual procurement process).
micheal_can
Senior Member
In other words, cost overruns, which means more money from taxpayers, which means one more thing the public will be pissed off about.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Ideally, the add-ons would get approved by a parliament vote before construction starts. Drawing from experience from back home in Germany and elsewhere, many of these add-ons are required by local politicians and communities, not the projects’ promoters. Therefore, I wonder what the objection is if the promoters present the minimum project scope which achieves the desired operational and commercial benefits and negotiate their share of these minimal construction costs before politicians add all the noise protection measures into their shopping carts.
It is exactly these kinds of unnecessary bypasses and tunnelling which lets construction costs of rail projects explode and if the respective governments accept that communities receive measures which go beyond what they are legally entitled to, then they should pay for it!
crs1026
Senior Member
^My own experience has been that "scope creep" is deadly and is to be ruthlessly beaten back. It's imperative that the "bells and whistles" (no pun intended) be clearly laid out before any construction contract is signed. No one should be dreaming up new variations or additions after the project is launched. There is enough risk just with unforeseens and construction related variables.
IT change orders have their own special place in hell, they make vendors huge profits - and they usually derive from inadequate assessment of required functionality and/or unclear instructions to the vendor and/or people dreaming up "enhancements". Caveat emptor applies.
At least with HFR, there will be an EA and many issues of impacts will get aired ahead of time. But - remember the West Toronto Diamond project, where GO assumed a very aggressive construction pace which was undone by residents taking legal action at the CTA over noise at all hours. Stuff happens.
- Paul
IT change orders have their own special place in hell, they make vendors huge profits - and they usually derive from inadequate assessment of required functionality and/or unclear instructions to the vendor and/or people dreaming up "enhancements". Caveat emptor applies.
At least with HFR, there will be an EA and many issues of impacts will get aired ahead of time. But - remember the West Toronto Diamond project, where GO assumed a very aggressive construction pace which was undone by residents taking legal action at the CTA over noise at all hours. Stuff happens.
- Paul
lenaitch
Senior Member
In my limited experience as a provincial civil servant, the government is a horrible IT consumer. Often, overruns are necessary simply to get the original project to work in the first place because they didn't properly articulate what it wanted or understand their own environment and/or didn't fully understand what they were buying. When what they wanted isn't delivered by what they bought they will pay more to get there because the alternative - legal action - is lengthy and bad karma, and the vendors know this.
Scope creep happens as well because politicians and bureaucrats know full well that the real cost of what they really want to do simply won't fly with public opinion or treasury board. Going back to the well after millions have already been spent is much easier because, otherwise, the perception is those millions are wasted. I think the feds are much more accomplished at this.
Scope creep happens as well because politicians and bureaucrats know full well that the real cost of what they really want to do simply won't fly with public opinion or treasury board. Going back to the well after millions have already been spent is much easier because, otherwise, the perception is those millions are wasted. I think the feds are much more accomplished at this.
robmausser
Senior Member
Oh man cannot agree more. Do web development and have government clients. I've never seen a project completely change in what needs to be done versus what was requested so much than with government jobs. This is even after specifically making sure they know what they are getting and asking a million questions to be absolutely sure.
Never worked on a project for government that didnt at least go 300% over budget.
My favourite lines are such as
"looks good! (after 6 months of work, nearing project completion final stages.) Ill show it to the upper management to see if they approve of it." FOR THE FIRST TIME.